Comparing prophylactic use of cefazolin for SSI in cesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Purpose

To summarize the available evidence to explore the effect of different prophylactic cefazolin regimens on postoperative surgical site infection after cesarean section.

Methods

We searched WOS, Pubmed, and EMBASE Database also traced citations in the reference sections of the retrieved studies. English search words: Cesarean section, Surgical site infection, Cefazolin. The majority of the literature are randomized controlled trials comparing varied regimens of cefazolin.

Results

A total of 11 randomized controlled trials and 4 non-randomized controlled trials involving 16,328 pregnant women were eligible. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of SSI after cesarean section when cefazolin was given at a high dose compared with cefazolin at a low dose (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.57–1.04, I2 = 0.0%). The risk of SSI after cesarean section was reduced by prophylactic use of cefazolin before skin incision compared with that after the umbilical cord clamping (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29–0.82, I2 = 53.4%). Because of the extreme heterogeneity of the combined drug use, no meta-analysis results were provided. The consequences of cefazolin combined with other antibiotics (either orally or intravenously) vary widely. For pregnant women with different risk factors, cefazolin alone or the type, dose and drug route of cefazolin combined with additional antibiotics need to be further studied and explored.

Conclusions

All in all, this article illustrates a better use of cefazolin for the control of Surgical incision site infection in the cesarean section. For pregnant women with cesarean section without high-risk factors of infection, the use of cefazolin is effective, but for pregnant women with different high-risk factors, the specific use of prophylactic antibiotics needs to be further explored.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. 1.

    Jalil MHA, Abu Hammour K, Alsous M, Awad W, Hadadden R, Bakri F, Fram K (2017) Surgical site infections following caesarean operations at a Jordanian teaching hospital: frequency and implicated factors. Sci Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12431-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Kawakita T, Huang C-C, Landy HJ (2018) Choice of prophylactic antibiotics and surgical site infections after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 132(4):948–955. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000002863

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Yildirim G, Gungorduk K, Guven HZ, Aslan H, Celikkol O, Sudolmus S, Ceylan Y (2009) When should we perform prophylactic antibiotics in elective cesarean cases? Arch Gynecol Obstet 280(1):13–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-008-0845-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Scholz R, Smith BA, Adams MG, Shah M, Brudner C, Datta A, Hirsch E (2019) A multifaceted surgical site infection prevention bundle for cesarean delivery. Am J Perinatol. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-3400993

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    La Rosa M, Omere C, Redfern T, Abdelwahab M, Spencer N, Villarreal J, Olson G, Saade GR, Saad AF (2020) The impact of low-dose versus high-dose antibiotic prophylaxis regimens on surgical site infection rates after cesarean delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 301(1):69–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05370-y

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Moulton LJ, Lachiewicz M, Liu X, Goje O (2018) Endomyometritis after cesarean delivery in the era of antibiotic prophylaxis: incidence and risk factors. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 31(9):1214–1219. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1312330

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Hong F, Zhang L, Zhang Y, Sun W, Hong H, Xu Y (2016) Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent postoperative infectious morbidity in low-risk elective cesarean deliveries: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Mater Fetal Neonatal Med 29(9):1382–1386

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Ahmadzia H, Joshi D, Patel E, Michel L, Heine RP, Coleman J (2015) Dose of preoperative antibiotics and obstetric surgical site infection in morbidly obese women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 212(1):S96

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Szente Fonseca SN, Sofia MH, Quintana S, Nogueira FdS, Levin AS (2008) Successful control program to implement the appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean section. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo 50(2):79–82. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0036-46652008000200003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Jyothirmayi CA, Halder A, Yadav B, Samuel ST, Kuruvilla A, Jose R (2017) A randomized controlled double blind trial comparing the effects of the prophylactic antibiotic, Cefazolin, administered at caesarean delivery at two different timings (before skin incision and after cord clamping) on both the mother and newborn. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1526-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Kandil M, Sanad Z, Gaber W (2014) Antibiotic prophylaxis at elective cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial in a low resource setting. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 27(6):588–591. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2013.823938

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Francis C, Mumford M, Strand ML, Moore ES, Strand EA (2013) Timing of prophylactic antibiotic at cesarean section: a double-blinded, randomized trial. J Perinatol 33(10):759–762. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2013.56

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Macones GA, Cleary KL, Parry S, Stamilio DM, Cahill AG, Odibo AO, Rampersad R (2012) The timing of antibiotics at cesarean: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Perinatol 29(4):273–276. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1295657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Sullivan SA, Smith T, Chang E, Hulsey T, Vandorsten P, Soper D (2007) Administration of cefazolin prior to skin incision is superior to cefazolin at cord clamping in preventing postcesarean infectious morbidity: a randomized, controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.03.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Sun J, Ding M, Liu J, Li Y, Sun X, Liu T, Chen Y (2013) Prophylactic administration of cefazolin prior to skin incision versus antibiotics at cord clamping in preventing postcesarean infectious morbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gynecol Obstet Invest 75(3):175–178

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Jyothi MS, Kalra JK, Arora A, Patil A, Suri V, Jain V, Shafiq N, Saini SS, Gautam V (2019) Randomized controlled trial of cefazolin monotherapy versus cefazolin plus azithromycin single dose prophylaxis for cesarean deliveries: a developing country’s perspective. J Fam Med Prim Care 8(9):3015–3021. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_593_19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Valent AM, DeArmond C, Houston JM, Reddy S, Masters HR, Gold A, Boldt M, DeFranco E, Evans AT, Warshak CR (2017) Effect of post-cesarean delivery oral cephalexin and metronidazole on surgical site infection among obese women a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318(11):1026–1034. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.10567

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Ilhan G, Verit Atmaca FF, Kaya A, Ergin AH, Gokmen Karasu AF, Turfan M (2016) Risk factors and microbiology of wound infections following cesarean delivery: experience of a single institution. J Infect Chemother 22(10):667–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiac.2016.07.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Pore SM, Sardesai SP, Tapare VS, Kulkarni MV, Malhotra AP, Chavan CS (2012) Single dose cefazolin plus metronidazole versus existing multi-dose regimen for prophylaxis in caesarean section. Indian J Pharmacol 44(2):279–280. https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7613.93874

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

MLL: project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing. BZS: data collection, manuscript writing. XYP: data collection, data management. JMS: data collection, data analysis. Jr M: project development.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Junru Ma.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest statement.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and material

We ensure that the data are accurate and we are willing to make the data public and transparent.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, M., Shi, B., Ma, J. et al. Comparing prophylactic use of cefazolin for SSI in cesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 303, 313–320 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05873-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cefazolin
  • Surgical site infection
  • Cesarean section